I would be dishonest, if I say I was not expecting reactions on the blog. But right now I am not trying to create any opinion over the blog as I am just putting an edited version of a message board discussion. So, I decided to move in this unplanned post ahead of the planned posts so as to merge the comments to the main discussion.
Gaurav suggests that my suggestion of the existence of God to reason out things we can't reason out does not stand merit. The theory of God is there to make a person feel that there is someone above all of us. Otherwise, we will start believing that we are the supreme force and our thoughts and decisions becomes monotonous and rigid. The though of God make us think about somebody whom we can look upon for the solution when we are in doubt.
Gaurav, I beg to differ a bit on the thought you presented. Point one is we should never ever devise a theory to limit the thought process. This theory seem to be originated with negative thought. It is pointless to think that we need somebody to master us. We do not seem to be believing that we are capable enough to just live our lives as per your theory, and I find it hard to digest.
Deepak has very different opinion than whatever has been presented so far. according to him the existence of God is just another state of mind, wherein human being try to find mental asylum in handing difficult conditions. According to him the thought is more driven by our upbringing rather than a logic structure and I agree on the this with him. We are fed with the theory in such a way that we feel that its a sin to even question the theory, that essentially drives us to a saturation level on the theory wherein we stop thinking on the matters which we should just believing that its a Godly issue. What I find surprising is that we try to justify a literature that was written thousands of years ago as a standard way of life, when the context of the life was drastically different from what it is right now.
The theory regarding to the God being creator-destroyer can always be questioned for the obvious reasons as it has too much loopholes. These arguments are more obvious than the arguments against the theory of evolution.
When we reason that we find solace in the lap of the theory of the existence of God, then I always feel we are restricting our ability to reason the things logically, scientifically. Because even right now we have large number of natural phenomenons that are yet to be explored, and human mind need a significant amount of time to observe and analyze, so I have always been keen on opposing the restrictive theories like Deepak.
Deepak has quoted Buddha to support his arguments, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Since I am in sync with his thoughts I have inserted my comments inline. Apology to Deepak, if this seem to be an idea to sabotage the copyright of his thoughts.
My dear fellow Shajee supported the believers theory. According to him theoretically every high level creations with intelligence after a certain time discards it's own creator like the sci-fi movies predicting our fate at the hands of machines, which are ironically our own creation.
He explains my doubts on the existence of God simultaneously with evil, by suggesting the Barber story on God's existence at http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/archive/index.php/t-152544.html.
On human being puppet he suggests that we can justify the counterargument as well.
Finally, he suggests that it is indeed tricky and difficult to believe in God as we always can justify our beliefs with arguments and counterarguments depending on the situation.
He also supported his argument with an anonymous quote, "As you sow, so shall you Reap.
There's but Heaven and there's Hell, wait till you die and you shall see."
And he has the belief that everybody do get a moment in life when he can feel God's presence.
Shajee Bhai, on your theory creation having the capability to discard its creator, I support the theory on the basis of Charles Darwin's theory that if creator is not good enough to survive let it be extinct as only fittest wil survive as per natural process. On barber story, I feel you did not read the comments from minority commenter. So, I find this argument as opportunist rather than generic.
Lastly on existence of Heaven and Hell or life after death, should a human being should do good only for the sake of deciding his fate after death? I have a different and successful perspective to try. For once try to do a good thing just to satisfy yourself and not to show to anybody or for the sake of God. That one piece of good thing would give you happiness for your life atleast (I am not sure about things post this life)
Deepak also have thoughts on comment from Shajee resisting comparison of spirituality with sci-fi theory as apples to oranges comparison. He also defines the ultimate truth as facts present inside our mind. He terms the prayer to be a tool to do things human can't do.
He believes nature to be the ultimate super power and nature cannot be amended; it has to be accepted. There is no way otherwise.
I agree with Deepak on his thoughts apart from his terming 2 theories to be apples and oranges. In my opinion when we think spiritually the core though is alway driven by environment we live in. So, we can always take in account anything materialistic evidence to give shape to our theory. Opposing any thought process, in my view is, unnatural.
Finally I had a verbal comment from one of my colleagues, who said that he does not agree with my posts. I think he is not the only one, billions of people do not agree with my thoughts. The natural reason for that is that they have thier own opinion. I never have any issue with people having different opinion, since this gives humanity a great value add.
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Does the God exists - Part 2
Way back in 2003, I had a discussion with some intellects on the topic if God exists or not. I felt my urge to put in the my opinion on the discussion over here. For the sake of readability, I am rewording the discussion. I have tried to be honest with the opinions from the opposite benches.
The discussion started, when somebody popped the question, does anything like the God exist?
My opinion was that I don't feel if there is anything like that has ever existed! This is a name given by the people to reason the questions they could not answer with logic/ science/ knowledge/ observations. People define God as a supreme spiritual power which controls everything in the universe. So, had there been an entity like GOD, there won't have been evils anywhere.
My last statement was bound to bring reaction. A believer countered "Had there been any entity like God, there wouldn't have been evils anywhere" is the biggest factor which makes many people doubt the existence of God. For getting the perfect answer you will have to study Atma, Parmatma and Prakriti. The purpose of God behind making this universe. A small example from "Atma, Parmatma and Prakriti" study:
"Jeev karm karne me swatantra hai. Karm ke aadhar par phal milega." (Every living being is free to work independently, he fate is decided on the basis of his work by God.). This world is just like an examination hall. Students are free to write anything. If a student writes something wrong the teacher will not tell him the correct answer. If he does so it will be injustice to other students. All the students will get marks as per their answers. Similarly, God does not interfere but gives reward or punishment as per our deeds.
I have an argument against this. If God does so, He is the worst entity. To prove Himself, He plays with so many creatures existing in the nature. I always believe that punishing is not a natural solution to evils, the natural solution is to correct the error. By doing so the concept of God does not abide to the natural laws. Hence the God does not exist in my opinion.
The only superpower is nature. Do abide by the natural laws. The is the way to live.
Another believer supported his fellow believer by treating God as special entity. He said that it is with our limited analytical knowledge we talk about God punishing or rewarding. For him adjectives do not apply nor do the laws of nature as they do to us ordinary human beings, because nature is created by Him, not vice-versa. He stated a so called true about renowned scientist Albert Einstein. "Einstein had a friend who was atheist. One day he came to Einstien's house and there was a beautiful model of solar system on the top of the table. His friend asked him who made this. Einstein replied, do you think that this was made by itself? Friend replied no. On this Einstein said, 'Our solar system is much more beautiful than this model and there must be some power who created it, that power is God'. His friend had to believe in that power after this incident."
You have all the knowledge about everything inside you. Observe yourself and you will get knowledge from doing that. It is not an easy task. It takes time. If you want some more explanation, read Gita. I am sure you will have answers to your question in Gita.
This idea is very practical and some scripture knowledge goes a long way in helping us under stand what is God.
For me He is given that special status even above the Nature, is the reason to the core of my argument. It is fine to have a faith, but we distort the facts. If argue that the solar system is part of nature and the power believers attributed to their God via Einstein's statement are trying to distort the facts. I have doubts to the level if he really said so? I treat such stories to which do not have documented proof as part of folk. Such things keep on creeping up as long as things goes. I state an example - Some close aide of Late Princess Diana of UK has said that she predicted her death. Now I say about someone known to me that he predicted 11 Sept attacks on US. It is sheer rubbish to state such things. Unless and until you witness and reason them.
Further even if Einstein had said so, it could have been his opinion. But that opinion does not settle the debate.
I feel that God is only a belief to cover and justify the things we can't reason. That's it. But really when we reason we will find that everything in the world can be reasoned through natural laws.
What I believe is that we should NOT fear the entity God- we should fear from ourself, so that we don't do the wrongs.
Again we should not leave anything to Him - we should do it our-self, because He doesn't exist.
The discussion started, when somebody popped the question, does anything like the God exist?
My opinion was that I don't feel if there is anything like that has ever existed! This is a name given by the people to reason the questions they could not answer with logic/ science/ knowledge/ observations. People define God as a supreme spiritual power which controls everything in the universe. So, had there been an entity like GOD, there won't have been evils anywhere.
My last statement was bound to bring reaction. A believer countered "Had there been any entity like God, there wouldn't have been evils anywhere" is the biggest factor which makes many people doubt the existence of God. For getting the perfect answer you will have to study Atma, Parmatma and Prakriti. The purpose of God behind making this universe. A small example from "Atma, Parmatma and Prakriti" study:
"Jeev karm karne me swatantra hai. Karm ke aadhar par phal milega." (Every living being is free to work independently, he fate is decided on the basis of his work by God.). This world is just like an examination hall. Students are free to write anything. If a student writes something wrong the teacher will not tell him the correct answer. If he does so it will be injustice to other students. All the students will get marks as per their answers. Similarly, God does not interfere but gives reward or punishment as per our deeds.
I have an argument against this. If God does so, He is the worst entity. To prove Himself, He plays with so many creatures existing in the nature. I always believe that punishing is not a natural solution to evils, the natural solution is to correct the error. By doing so the concept of God does not abide to the natural laws. Hence the God does not exist in my opinion.
The only superpower is nature. Do abide by the natural laws. The is the way to live.
Another believer supported his fellow believer by treating God as special entity. He said that it is with our limited analytical knowledge we talk about God punishing or rewarding. For him adjectives do not apply nor do the laws of nature as they do to us ordinary human beings, because nature is created by Him, not vice-versa. He stated a so called true about renowned scientist Albert Einstein. "Einstein had a friend who was atheist. One day he came to Einstien's house and there was a beautiful model of solar system on the top of the table. His friend asked him who made this. Einstein replied, do you think that this was made by itself? Friend replied no. On this Einstein said, 'Our solar system is much more beautiful than this model and there must be some power who created it, that power is God'. His friend had to believe in that power after this incident."
You have all the knowledge about everything inside you. Observe yourself and you will get knowledge from doing that. It is not an easy task. It takes time. If you want some more explanation, read Gita. I am sure you will have answers to your question in Gita.
This idea is very practical and some scripture knowledge goes a long way in helping us under stand what is God.
For me He is given that special status even above the Nature, is the reason to the core of my argument. It is fine to have a faith, but we distort the facts. If argue that the solar system is part of nature and the power believers attributed to their God via Einstein's statement are trying to distort the facts. I have doubts to the level if he really said so? I treat such stories to which do not have documented proof as part of folk. Such things keep on creeping up as long as things goes. I state an example - Some close aide of Late Princess Diana of UK has said that she predicted her death. Now I say about someone known to me that he predicted 11 Sept attacks on US. It is sheer rubbish to state such things. Unless and until you witness and reason them.
Further even if Einstein had said so, it could have been his opinion. But that opinion does not settle the debate.
I feel that God is only a belief to cover and justify the things we can't reason. That's it. But really when we reason we will find that everything in the world can be reasoned through natural laws.
What I believe is that we should NOT fear the entity God- we should fear from ourself, so that we don't do the wrongs.
Again we should not leave anything to Him - we should do it our-self, because He doesn't exist.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Does the God exist?
I call myself an atheist. But this is the question that must be pinging the human beings for ages, does the God really exists?
Usually, there are 4 standard opinions. First opinion accepts that the God exist and the people with this opinion don't have any questions regarding the belief of existing of God. The most obvious arguments to support their opinion is that despite our scientific advances we still are unable to justify a lot of happenings in this world. These are the people who believe it is a sin to question the existence of God. Surprisingly this is my favorite topic of discussion.
The second opinion accepts the God, because we have believed in this for ages and things have been working fine this way. The people with this opinion don't feel that they have argument for or against this as this explains most of the events in their lives.
Third opinion accepts the God, but has its own doubts with the theory of God. These people use the existence of God as per their convenience, although at times personally they would have none of it. But on public front they would never accept that they question the God.
Fourth opinion does not believe in God. This is very small group which is usually treated by the society as a rebellion. I and people from this group, however, like to be branded as thinkers.
Since I personally support the fourth opinion, I would like to add my argument through this blog. But to remain honest I would also like to keep the feedback of people from the first three opinions as well.
So, my coming posts will be a bit rebellion to the taste of society, but that is an archived true discussion from a public forum. Even though right now I have committed to post frequently, but as usual the posts may be posted irregularly due to primarily my mood swings and work commitments. I would also edit the discussion a bit to keep the things in context and hide the personal identifications.
Usually, there are 4 standard opinions. First opinion accepts that the God exist and the people with this opinion don't have any questions regarding the belief of existing of God. The most obvious arguments to support their opinion is that despite our scientific advances we still are unable to justify a lot of happenings in this world. These are the people who believe it is a sin to question the existence of God. Surprisingly this is my favorite topic of discussion.
The second opinion accepts the God, because we have believed in this for ages and things have been working fine this way. The people with this opinion don't feel that they have argument for or against this as this explains most of the events in their lives.
Third opinion accepts the God, but has its own doubts with the theory of God. These people use the existence of God as per their convenience, although at times personally they would have none of it. But on public front they would never accept that they question the God.
Fourth opinion does not believe in God. This is very small group which is usually treated by the society as a rebellion. I and people from this group, however, like to be branded as thinkers.
Since I personally support the fourth opinion, I would like to add my argument through this blog. But to remain honest I would also like to keep the feedback of people from the first three opinions as well.
So, my coming posts will be a bit rebellion to the taste of society, but that is an archived true discussion from a public forum. Even though right now I have committed to post frequently, but as usual the posts may be posted irregularly due to primarily my mood swings and work commitments. I would also edit the discussion a bit to keep the things in context and hide the personal identifications.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Union Budget 2009 - A taxpayer's analysis
When Indian Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee quoted Mahatma Gandhi in his budget speech, “Democracy is the art and science of mobilizing the entire physical, economic and spiritual resources of various sections of the people in the service of the common good of all.”, like everybody listening to him I was also able to realize that this is a "populist budget". But unlike financial analysts, who have an reservation with the term "populist budget", I tend to like the term and often when I think deeply I tend to favour the notion. The key thing I find is the challenges that have been enlisted:
- to lead economy to high GDP growth rate of 9 per cent per annum at the earliest
- to deepen and broaden the agenda for inclusive development
- to improve delivery mechanisms of the government.
If these are honestly crafted and seriously thought challenges, I would certainly like the budget presented thereafter for India Inc. If Mr. FM can work on any of these seriously, I would not mind running my car on a road with potholes as big as my tyres for one more year despite having paid full road tax.
I am not sure why financial analysts see the populist budget as anti-development. Here I see a lot of planned development. If we can work on "agenda for inclusive development", it means more wealthy people embracing our economy, which means a bigger wealthy society, leading to more business. There is no issue with schemes like NREGS, Bharat Nirman, and PMAGY as these are directed towards the people who contribute to our economy in large numbers. This will help them improve their lives, which in turn contribute to our economy. Correct me if I am wrong in interpreting the term.
Right now the biggest hinderance on the road to development is the delivery system of the government, rather than the agenda for inclusive development and if this can be fixed. I see that the plans will be executed as per the expectations. I really dont see any issue, if I pay road tax for a roads to be fixed, and government delivery mechanism is correct, I will get a good road. So any effort to make government more accountable should be welcome. It may seem to be costing in short term, but in long term its repaying us. Spending money on UIDAI and National Security is good for economy.
On budget tax proposals, any step to increase my take home is welcome. Increasing the exemption limit is good excercise for taxpayers, but it should not loose government significant revenue. Removal of surchange on personal tax is also welcome as it would make the fat cheque drawers look ordinary citizens and not the extraordinate taxpayers. Abolishment of FBT makes me happy for people around me, who can now expect their employers to shower some freak 'allowances' like office phone etc. NPS being tax free is another allowance from FM for us.
- to lead economy to high GDP growth rate of 9 per cent per annum at the earliest
- to deepen and broaden the agenda for inclusive development
- to improve delivery mechanisms of the government.
If these are honestly crafted and seriously thought challenges, I would certainly like the budget presented thereafter for India Inc. If Mr. FM can work on any of these seriously, I would not mind running my car on a road with potholes as big as my tyres for one more year despite having paid full road tax.
I am not sure why financial analysts see the populist budget as anti-development. Here I see a lot of planned development. If we can work on "agenda for inclusive development", it means more wealthy people embracing our economy, which means a bigger wealthy society, leading to more business. There is no issue with schemes like NREGS, Bharat Nirman, and PMAGY as these are directed towards the people who contribute to our economy in large numbers. This will help them improve their lives, which in turn contribute to our economy. Correct me if I am wrong in interpreting the term.
Right now the biggest hinderance on the road to development is the delivery system of the government, rather than the agenda for inclusive development and if this can be fixed. I see that the plans will be executed as per the expectations. I really dont see any issue, if I pay road tax for a roads to be fixed, and government delivery mechanism is correct, I will get a good road. So any effort to make government more accountable should be welcome. It may seem to be costing in short term, but in long term its repaying us. Spending money on UIDAI and National Security is good for economy.
On budget tax proposals, any step to increase my take home is welcome. Increasing the exemption limit is good excercise for taxpayers, but it should not loose government significant revenue. Removal of surchange on personal tax is also welcome as it would make the fat cheque drawers look ordinary citizens and not the extraordinate taxpayers. Abolishment of FBT makes me happy for people around me, who can now expect their employers to shower some freak 'allowances' like office phone etc. NPS being tax free is another allowance from FM for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
